Comments on: Fstoppers Reviews the Canon 35mm f/2

By: JP de Ruiter

JP de Ruiter — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:14:00 +0000

Look carefully, the fringing is only in the unfocused parts. Some call that “color bokeh” but that is not the official name, it is called spherochromatism. So for the stuff that is in focus, the fringing is a lot less, if any. In fact, using the sculpted head is not the most useful test object. A classical test chart is much better, or if one *wants* to check for spherochromatism, it is a better idea to just take a picture of a black and white ruler that extends out through the focal plane. Also we cannot check corner sharpness here (which is very good for this lens).

By: JP de Ruiter

JP de Ruiter — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 12:07:00 +0000

Agreed completely. Also, the Sigma 35 F1.4 has serious AF and/or field curvature problems. Not for all buyers, but for many, probably those who test carefully. The electronic interface of the Sigma is not licensed but back engineered, which I think is why the AF is not working perfectly (and for making actual pictures in the wild out there, the only useful AF is one that works perfectly). Having max aperture 1.4 is a status symbol that can cloud objective thinking…

By: Brian Reese

Brian Reese — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:54:00 +0000

No… It was a good one.

By: Brandon Bandy

Brandon Bandy — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:31:00 +0000

i spot a Nikon fanboy

By: Smart_Alex82

Smart_Alex82 — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:58:00 +0000

The world’s first stabilized 35mm lens, with semi near focus, and you say canon’s competitors are beginning to out-innovate them… seriously, are you smoking the whacky tabacci?

” When shooting in the dark (which I do often), I was really missing that
extra stop that can be found on other 35mm lenses on the market.”

I feel like this is troll bait, but I’ll give it a try…

You can’t be serious?

Okay, so I think you know what IS is, but just to make sure…

Image Stabilization creates more sharp images, by utilizing a mechanism in the lens which will compensate for unstable hand holding technique, as well as allowing for longer exposures than would normally be available in a 35mm lens. (c) me two minutes ago.

The lens you are complaining about and reviewing, versus the lens you are raving, has one less stop of light, that is true.

It also has two – three additional stops of light gathering as a result of your IS built into the lens.

So, you gained, at minimum, one stop of light gathering capability compared to your golden f/1.4 lens.

I don’t know if you’ve ever shot something in your life without sitting in front of a computer during it; I don’t know if you actually own this lens, or just stole someone else’s images with it, but you clearly, do not know, what you are talking about, while you’re reviewing this.

By: kongmw

kongmw — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:18:00 +0000

At this price, I’d go for the 35 f/1.4 L with the current discount. I personally never understood why Canon keep stuffing IS into short focal length lenses.

By: Jaron Schneider

Jaron Schneider — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:05:00 +0000

I am working on a comparison piece right now. I like to keep comparisons out of reviews and try and comment on individual pieces on their own merit.

By: behindthecamera

behindthecamera — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:49:00 +0000

No, it’s not a “good one”, it’s offensive and deserves to be modded out.

By: Brandon Polack

Brandon Polack — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:25:00 +0000

So between the two which one do you like better, Canon or Sigma????

By: Hasan Yener

Hasan Yener — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:37:00 +0000

Again typical canon ugly red green pixel on shadow (clearly visible on last image shoot by f22).I so regret I switch to canon,I will come back to again to nikon.wait me my lovely gear and old friend nikon.